A Political History Lesson Freshman 101 Reposted

[goddesscon]

The First Party System 1788-1824: Federalists, Republicans, and One Party Factionalism

American parties were born in the policy conflict between Hamilton and Jefferson during the Washington administration. As their disputes intensified, each turned to his supporters within the Congress, and factional alliances between leaders of the executive and legislative branches developed. The emerging parties, therefore, developed out of national divisions, not state politics. It was, however, the Jeffersonians who first sought to broaden their operations beyond the nation's capital by endorsing candidates for Congress and presidential elector. Later they developed slates of candidates for state offices. The Federalists, led by Hamilton and Adams, were forced to follow suit and compete for support within the mass electorate. The Federalists, however, were reluctant party organizers whose initial reaction to the party organizing activities of Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans was to bemoan their rivals' appeals to the public. As Hamilton noted, the Federalists "erred in relying so much on the rectitude and utility of their measures as to have neglected the cultivation of popular favor by fair and justifiable expedients." Historians are in general agreement that the dramatic extension of party organizations at the local level in the election of 1800 and the aggressive organizing of the Democratic-Republicans in support of Jefferson contributed to his election over John Adams. The nomination of presidential candidates by party caucuses in Congress is further evidence of the emergence of party organizations.

The Federalists were advocates of a positive national government capable of nation building and the protection of American business interests. In foreign affairs, they sided with the British against the revolutionary regime of France. In terms of electoral bases of support, the Federalists tended to be the established leadership strata in most of the states, while their challengers were Jeffersonians. Federalists were distinguished by being persons of old wealth, respectable occupations, and higher levels of formal education. By contrast, the Democratic-Republicans tended to draw support from less elite elements of society. They were fearful of the strong national government emerging under the Federalists and were protectors of agricultural interests. They were aligned with the French in foreign affairs.

Federalist electoral support suffered a precipitous decline after their defeat in 1800. This decline is related to their failure, as the party of the American elite, to respond in as timely a manner as the Democratic-Republicans to the popular and democratic style of politics that was developing. After 1816, the Federalists disappeared as a national political party capable of contesting for the presidency and competed only in a few states such as Massachusetts and Delaware. The Jeffersonians were triumphant and the first era of partisan competition was over. The "Era of Good Feeling" which followed was a period of partyless politics characterized by factionalism among leaders all of whom claimed to be Republicans. Since all elected officials belonged to one party, it was impossible for President James Monroe to exercise any party discipline over Congress and coherent action by Congress became impossible to achieve.

Factionalism within the dominant Democratic-Republican party led to the collapse of the congressional caucus system of presidential nominations. Since there was no opposition party, the winner of the caucus nomination was assured of election. The congressional caucus, however, had never been popular. It was seen more and more as an undemocratic device as the franchise was extended to all white males due to the dropping of property owning restrictions on voting by the states. In 1824, when the congressional caucus nominated William Crawford for president, it was inevitable that other ambitious politicians would challenge Crawford in the general election. The 1824 election became a four way contest between Crawford, John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, and Henry Clay. As a result, no candidate received a majority in the electoral college. The House of Representatives, after much bickering and maneuvering, finally chose Adams. His administration was characterized by intense intraparty conflict between his followers and those of Jackson. The "Era of Good Feeling" was at an end and the expanded electorate stood ready for political mobilization by political parties.

As Everett Carll Ladd has noted, this First Party System was differentiated from those which have followed by the fact that neither Federalists nor Democratic-Republicans were born into families with these affiliations. There were no traditional party loyalties upon which to build electoral support and sustain parties. Political activists had not had their party identification passed on to them by parents and friends through reinforcing patterns of interaction.

... The absence of inherited loyalties in the new party system of the first period, together with the rudimentary character of party organization and the prevailing tendency to see party as, at best, a necessary evil, made the new party growth relatively superficial. The roots of party simply did not run deep.






End of first lesson...
Stay tuned for the nxt episode of Party Battles and history :D

[goddesscon]

The Second Party System, 1828-1854: Democrats versus Whigs in Two Party Competitive Politics

Andrew Jackson, the popular hero of the Battle of New Orleans, defeated Adams in 1828 and gained reelection over Clay in 1832. These elections were fought in a transitional era of bifactional politics within the dominant Democratic-Republican party. Jackson and Adams in 1828 both used variations on the Republican name as their party labels as did Clay in 1832, when Jackson switched to the Democratic label. By 1834 the amalgam of forces and groups opposed to Jackson's policies had coalesced sufficiently to form an opposition party, the Whigs. An era of unusually close two party competition followed.

This Second Party System came into being during a period when American political life was democratized; slates of presidential electors were popularly elected; property qualifications for voting were dropped; and electoral participation increased dramatically. For example, voter turnout increased from 26.9 percent of eligible voters in 1824 to 78.9 percent in 1848. Party nominating procedures were also opened to wider participation as the congressional caucus was replaced by the national convention.

In the two decades that followed Jackson's reelection in 1832, the Whigs and Democrats were engaged in an intense struggle for the newly expanded electorate. They engaged in popularized campaigning, torchlight parades, rallies, picnics, campaign songs, and slogans like "Tippecanoe and Tyler too." Both parties organized state and local parties and ran full slates of candidates under a party label. In this atmosphere of partisan mobilization, voters began to see themselves as either Whigs or Democrats. Unlike the Federalists, who had been reluctant to court popular support, the Whigs did so with zeal. As the national minority party, one of their favorite techniques was to run military heroes with an appeal above party for president. They did this in four of six elections and were successful twice-in 1840 with William Henry Harrison and in 1848 with Zachary Taylor. In nine of eleven elections, however, the majority Democrats won control of the Congress.

Both the Democrats and the Whigs were truly national parties which engaged in relatively close competition not only at the national level but also in each region and in most states. For example, such old bastions of Jefferson's as Georgia, North Carolina, Louisiana, and Tennessee divided their support quite evenly between the Whigs and Democrats as did the Middle Atlantic states. Ladd has observed that in the 1836-1852 period, the "United States had less regional variation in voting than at any other time in history." This lack of sectionalism in American politics was a tribute to the skills of Democratic and Whig leaders in balancing the interests of farmers, manufacturing and mercantile interests, nativists, immigrants, Catholics, and Protestants. Both parties were broad coalitions which sought backing throughout the country, with the Whigs attracting proportionately more support from manufacturing and trading interests, planners, and old Protestant stock, while the Democrats did well among newly enfranchised voters, western farmers, Catholics, and new immigrants.

The absence of highly salient issues that might have divided the nation along sectional lines also contributed to the ability of the two parties to compete in all regions. However, when the racial and slavery issues reached crisis proportions in the 1850s, the Whigs and Democrats were confronted with a nation divided along sectional lines. This national schism was reflected in the parties which split on a North-South axis because neither was able to satisfy both regions. America then entered its Third Party System.

Keep on learning I say.... A mind is a terrible thing to waste ;)

[goddesscon]

The Third Party System, 1856-1896: Ascendant Republicans versus Democrats

Culturally and economically the South became increasingly distinct from the rest of the nation during the 1840s and 1850s. While abolitionist sentiment gained support in the North, demonstrating the force of a compelling moral issue, the South continued to harbor the institution of slavery. In addition, the two regions' economies were developing quite differently. The South concentrated almost exclusively on agriculture, especially cotton, while the North was becoming more industrial, urban, and mixed in its ethnic composition. In addition, the population and wealth of the North were growing at a much more rapid rate than those of the South. These economic and cultural differences inevitably led to political conflicts over the direction of national policy. The sectional rivalries created by those differences came into their sharpest conflict because of the ceaseless westward expansion of the nation. Western settlement required the Congress and the parties to confront the issues of whether slavery would be permitted in the territories and whether the new states would be admitted as slave or free states. Any change in the number of free and slave states threatened to upset the delicate balance of power in the national government. Both the Whigs and Democrats were unable to reconcile the sectional conflicts within their ranks and as a result the electorate went through a major realignment in the 1850s and 1860s.

The Democrats' situation was made difficult by the powerful position occupied by its southern wing. In Congress, the Democrats were dominated by southerners de termined to maintain the institution of slavery and protect the political position of the South by insisting that the balance of free and slave states not be upset when new states were admitted to the Union. The South was also strengthened by the two thirds rule used by the Democratic national nominating conventions. This procedure guaranteed the South a veto over the selection of presidential nominees. As a result, the party could only agree to nominate weak "neutralist" or "doughface" candidates like Franklin Pierce (1852) and James Buchanan (1856). With weak presidents and a southern led Congress, it was not possible for the government to resolve the slavery issue.

In the midst of this sectional turmoil over the extension of slavery, the Whig party dissolved. The Whigs had traditionally been the party of national integration and accommodation between the North and South. But with the intensification of northern hostility toward slavery and heightened sectional sentiments in the South, the Whigs' position was undermined in both regions. Faced with declining electoral support, a schism between its northern and southern wings, and the emergence of the antislavery Republican party in the North, the Whig party ceased to be a major electoral force after the elections of 1854.

There was a transition period toward two party competition between the Republicans and Democrats between 1854 and 1860. In the presidential election of 1856, the new Republican party composed of abolitionists, Free Soilers, and dissident northern Whigs and Democrats came in second to Democrats, as James Buchanan defeated General John C. Fremont. The remaining Whigs nominated former President Millard Fillmore under the American party banner and came in a dismal third. No candidate received a majority of the popular vote. The deterioration of the old party system continued in 1860. In the North, the election was a contest between the nominee of Northern Democrats, Stephen A. Douglas, and former Whig, Abraham Lincoln, the Republican nominee; while in the South, southern Democrat John C. Breckenridge contested a former southern Whig, John Bell. Again, no candidate received a popular vote majority, though Lincoln was able to gain 59.4 percent of the electoral vote with 39.8 percent of the popular vote.

The period of 1864-1874 was a period of Republican dominance. The successful prosecution of the Civil War identified the GOP with the Union, patriotism, and humanitarianism. But Republican strength did not rest on emotionalism alone. The party forged an alliance of farmers through the Homestead Act and free land in the West, business and labor through support for a high protective tariff, entrepreneurs through federal land grants to build transcontinental railroads linking the West and North (and bypassing the South), and veterans through pensions. By imposing Reconstruction upon the South, the post-Civil War Radical Republicans in Congress sought to control the South through black votes and the support of carpetbaggers. Both parties were sectional parties. The GOP was dominant in the North and West, but it had little popular support in the South. The Democrats, by contrast, were a southern based party. The party's addiction to free trade did, however, give it some northern business allies among those who shared its views on trade. In addition, the Democrats gained substantial support among Roman Catholic immigrants in cities of the North. After 1874 and the end of Reconstruction, the Republicans and Democrats started to compete on a more even basis up until 1896. They alternated control of the presidency and Congress, but the post-Civil War period was primarily an era of Republican dominance in national political life.

In addition to the disappearance of the Whigs and the emergence of the Republicans as the dominant political party, two other significant developments came from the era of the Third Party System. One was the growth, particularly in the middle Atlantic and some midwestern states and cities, of patronage based party organizations or machines that were extremely effective in controlling nominations and mobilizing party votes on election day. Ironically, the Third Party System was also the era that ushered in the party machine weakening reform of the Australian ballot (ballots printed at government expense instead of party printed ballots, and provision for casting one's vote in secret). The Australian ballot movement gave the voter new independence from parties in making electoral choices. It was no longer public knowledge how people voted and using government provided ballots made it easier for citizens to split their ballots and vote for candidates of differing parties.



Phew that was a long lesson....but we're not done yet

[goddesscon]

The Fourth Party System, 1896-1928: Republican Dominance Renewed

The period following the Civil War was a period of immense social and economic change with far-reaching consequences for electoral politics. It was a time when the United States ceased to be a primarily agrarian society and became an industrialized and urban nation. By 1890 more people were employed in manufacturing than in agriculture, and by the end of the 1920s only one family in four was involved in agriculture. On the eve of the Civil War, no American city had contained a million people, but by the close of the 1920s cities with a population in excess of a million inhabitants were becoming commonplace-New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles. Transportation advances, like the completion of the great transcontinental railroads, linked the East and West and made the nation more interdependent. Rail mileage grew from 8,500 in 1850 to 193,000 in 1900. This was also the era of the rise of the corporation-mammoth enterprises like Standard Oil and U.S. Steel. The ethnic makeup of the population also changed as waves of immigrants entered the country from non-English-speaking nations of Europe.

The economic and social revolution that was transforming America posed new problems for the political system. Radical agrarian movements swept the nation (e.g., the Grangers Farmers' Alliance, and Greenbackers). Third party movements also formed. The most significant was the People's party (Populist), which in 1892 garnered over one million votes and twenty-two electoral votes on a radical platform that demanded the inflation of the currency through unlimited coinage of silver, nationalization of railroads and telephone/telegraph companies, and instituting an income tax. These movements reflected the economic dislocations that were occurring and agrarian discontent with the growing power of corporations and the frequently depressed state of the farm economy. The late 1800s also witnessed the rise of labor organizations which mirrored the discontent of urban workers with their status in the new industrial order.

Neither the dominant Republicans nor the "me too" Democrats were responsive initially to these popular protest movements. In 1896, however, the forces of agrarian radicalism captured the Democratic presidential nomination for William Jennings Bryan, whose platform was a challenge to the existing industrial order. A key plank in the Democrats' platform was a call for free and unlimited coinage of silver and gold at a ratio of sixteen to one. In adopting this position, the Democrats appropriated the principal program of the Populists and made a dramatic appeal to farmers, debtors, and western mining interests. The Democrats were also the party of a low tariff.

Seeking to bolster their post-Civil War coalition, the Republicans countered by advocating the gold standard and opposition to the inflationary free coinage of silver; and they maintained their position as the party of the high protective tariff. Their stand on the silver issue cost them the support of western states, but the high protective tariff position brought them renewed support among urban workers, who blamed the depression of the 1890s on the low tariff policies of the Democratic Cleveland administration. William McKinley, the Republican candidate, was able to run on the themes of "Prosperity Sound Money Good Markets and Employment for Labor-A Full Dinner Bucket." Mark Hanna, the Ohio industrialist and skilled Republican campaign manager, also mobilized business interests terrified by Bryan and his policies to give generous and overwhelming support to the GOP issue.

The election of 1896 transformed the political landscape and realigned the electorate. The Republican coalition forged during and after the Civil War received an infusion of support, especially among urban dwellers of the Northeast. McKinley carried the nation's ten largest cities and increased the GOP vote in working, middle, and upper class wards. Bryan was the sectional candidate of the agrarian South, the Plains, the silver mining states of the West. He had little appeal to the industrializing East and Middle West, where the bulk of the population and electoral votes were located. V. 0. Key has observed that the Democratic loss of 1896 "was so demoralizing and so thorough that the party made little headway in regrouping its forces until 1916." Indeed, the Democrats elected only one president in the period between 1896 and 1928, and Woodrow Wilson's 1912 election was possible only because of a major schism within the dominant Republican coalition.

In that year, the festering internal Republican conflict between the traditional conservatives of the industrial-financial centers of the Northeast and the Progressive reformers of the Middle West and West broke wide open. Theodore Roosevelt, after failing to capture the GOP nomination from President William Howard Taft, ran as a candidate of the Progressive party. Roosevelt split the Republican vote and actually outpolled Taft in popular votes (27.4 percent to 23.2 percent). This division permitted a brief Democratic interlude under Wilson. After World War 1, the fire was out of the progressive movement and Americans yearned for normalcy. In this postwar atmosphere, the Republicans asserted their dominance with impressive victories in 1920, 1924, and 1928. Although the Republicans won the election of 1928, the election returns gave evidence of expanding Democratic strength. The Democratic percentage of the popular vote jumped from 28.8 in 1924 to 40.8 in 1928, and the party's presidential ticket carried Massachusetts and Rhode Island, an indication of its approval to voters in Catholic, urban, and industrial centers. Democratic support was thus developing in the growing metropolitan and manufacturing centers, while the GOP tended to be dominant in northern and eastern rural precincts.

The Fourth Party System was an era of diminished interparty competition. In the seven presidential elections after 1896, the average Republican share of the national two party vote was 57.7 percent, while the Democrats received 42.3 percent. In four of these elections the gap between the Republican and Democratic vote exceeded ten percentage points-the usual definition of a landslide. This was in sharp contrast to the evenness of competition between 1876 and 1896, when in 1880, 1884, and 1892, less than one percentage point separated the two parties' share of the popular vote for president. The post-1 896 lack of competitiveness was also reflected in state elections. Regional voting patterns were sharply differentiated. The South, especially after the disenfranchisement of blacks via devices like the poll tax and white primary, became even more overwhelmingly Democratic. In the rest of the nation, however, the Republicans were dominant. In 22 states of the North and West, the Republicans received more than 60 percent of the vote on average in the presidential elections from 1896 to 1928.

The Progressive reform movement of this period had a profound impact on American parties, even though the progressives never succeeded in forming a major party. It was during the Fourth Party System era that the direct primary was instituted as the principal method of nominating candidates. The primary weakened the capacity of parties to control the nominating process and enabled candidates to make direct appeals to the voters. The presidential primary was also born in this period. Another major change in the legal environment of parties was the imposition of governmental regulation, primarily by the states. Primary laws frequently regulated party organizational structure, and campaign finance was also brought within the purview of the law. Parties became quasi public agencies subject to legislative control.


Still another lesson to go and it is a long one so get your reading glasses!

[goddesscon]

The Fifth Party System, 1932-?: The Democratic New Deal Era and Beyond

President Herbert Hoover had been in office less than a year when the stock market crash signaled the beginning of the Great Depression of the 1930s. The election of 1932 was a major benchmark in American political history. It marked a realignment of the electorate from a Republican to a Democratic majority. The New Deal coalition that supported Franklin D. Roosevelt was formed. Like the old Republican coalition, the new Democratic majority was an amalgam of disparate and sometimes conflicting elements. White southerners, still wedded to the cause of white supremacy, were a core group, as were Catholic urban workers, mostly recent immigrant stock from eastern and southern Europe, who had been socialized to political life by the urban political machines. These Catholic voters had also been drawn to the Democratic banner by the anti prohibitionist candidacy of a coreligionist, Governor Al Smith of New York, in 1928. Blue collar workers, especially organized labor, rallied to support Roosevelt in the face of ris ing unemployment. Blacks forsook the party of Lincoln to back the Democrats, since the already economically depressed black society was severely rocked by the Depression. Jews, who heretofore had been predominantly Republican, also became identified with the Democratic party because of the Depression and Roosevelt's leadership against Nazi Germany. In addition, young people entering the ranks of the electorate in the 1930s and 1940s became Democrats. The Democrats were riding a wave of demographic change. Urban ethnics, Catholics, blue collar workers, and blacks were becoming a more and more significant proportion of the electorate; while the traditional Republican base of white Protestants, small town residents, farmers, and middle class businessmen constituted a shrinking share of the population.

Franklin Roosevelt's election and his New Deal social welfare policies, which instituted an American version of the welfare state, had long run weakening consequences for the traditional, patronage based, urban party organizations. New social insurance programs (like Social Security and unemployment compensation) were effectively insulated from patronage-type politics and served as models for later federal grant-in-aid programs that emphasized professionalism in state and local government. The New Deal social welfare programs not only weakened the patronage base of the machines, they also took from the machines their traditional function of providing welfare services to the deprived urban populations.

The New Deal Democratic electoral coalition forged by Roosevelt proved to be an enduring alliance. Between 1932 and 1948, the Democrats won the White House all five times and only lost control of the Congress once in 1946. Divisions within the dominant coalition, however, appeared as early as the late 1930s when conservative southern Democratic representatives and senators began to dissent from Roosevelt's social welfare policies. The North-South split within the party became even more pronounced after 1948 and into the 1960s when northern Democratic leaders like Senator Hubert Humphrey (Minn.) led the party into taking a strong stand on civil rights issues.

Throughout the period since the 1930s, the Republican party has remained the minority party. At least twice after electoral disasters in 1936 and 1964, it was written off by political commentators as terminally ill. Its obituaries were prepared prematurely, however, because each time the party staged a timely comeback demonstrating the resiliency of two party competition in the United States. In 1952, Republicans used a strategy long favored by minority parties to help them win the presidency and Congress. Like the Whigs of 1840 and 1848, the GOP nominated a national hero, General Dwight D. Eisenhower, the charismatic commander of Allied forces in Europe during World War 11. Running on the slogan "I like Ike," the Republicans made major inroads into all elements of the New Deal coalition, while holding the traditional Republican vote. Particularly noteworthy was Eisenhower's support in the heretofore solidly Democratic South, where he carried such states of the old Confederacy as Virginia, Texas, Florida, and Tennessee. The Eisenhower years proved to be

a period of consolidation in American politics. The new Republican administration and Congress did not move to repeal the policies of the New Deal. Rather, they accepted the New Deal programs and made only minor modifications. With this Republican acceptance, the Roosevelt New Deal legacy ceased to be the divisive force in American politics that it had been. One of Eisenhower's Republican successors, Ronald Reagan, could even be heard praising and quoting Roosevelt in the 1980s.

Running on a theme of "Peace and Prosperity," Eisenhower swept to an even more overwhelming victory in 1956. The election, however, confirmed the continuing minority status of the GOP, which lost seats in the House and Senate despite the landslide election of the President. The normal Democratic majority reassured itself in 1960 and 1964 with the elections of John E Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson. The huge congressional majorities with Johnson carried into office with him in 1964 enabled the party to enact his Great Society programs-a massive expansion of social welfare assistance, which was carried out largely through extensive grant-in-aid programs to state and local governments. Since their landslide win of 1964, however, the divisions within the Democratic party have intensified as the party has split over such issues as race relations, the Vietnam war, defense policy, crime and civil disorder, and social policy.

Many observers believe that starting in the mid 1960s America entered the post-New Deal era. The electoral alignments of the 1930s were still visible, but they were much less pronounced than in the past. Americans showed a marked tendency to be less influenced by party appeals. Party identification among the voters declined, especially among young people. Voters were more inclined to split their tickets between the two parties as party affiliation had diminished influence on voter choice. The class based distinctions between supporters of the two parties diminished as the Democrats competed more evenly with the GOP for the votes of middle class, professional, and business people. At the same time, the Republican vote among blue collar workers and even members of organized labor increased. And Republicans actually carried the white Catholic vote in 1980, 1984, and 1988. The electorate had become less predictable and capable of mobilization by either party. It was a highly volatile electorate subject to wide swings of sentiment from election to election.

This post-New Deal period has been a period of keen competition between the Republicans and Democrats for the presidency. In the eleven post-World War II elections between 1948 and 1992 the GOP has won seven times and the Democrats five. Republican presidential election successes-Richard Nixon's elections in 1968 and 1972 and the Ronald Reagan/George Bush victories of 1980, 1984, and 1988-plus GOP gains among socioeconomic groups traditionally supportive of the Democratic party even prompted speculation about the possibility of the country's entering a new Republican era. However, the Republicans' failure to gain control of Congress over the forty years between 1954 and 1994, plus Democratic dominance of most governorships and state legislatures, caused informed observers to discount the notion that the Republicans were becoming the dominant party. This skepticism was reinforced when voters broke the GOP's twelve-year hold on the presidency in 1992 by electing Bill Clinton. However, as the Republicans swept the 1994 midterm elections, winning control of Congress and a majority of the governorships, there was renewed speculation about whether or not the country was entering a new political era.
Analyses of election returns from the 1980s and mid I 990s reveal that the alignment of voters has changed since the 1930s when the New Deal coalition was assembled. White southerners, once a core Democratic support group, are becoming increasingly Republican. Catholics, and to a lesser degree blue collar workers, are showing greater susceptibility to Republican appeals. At the same time, black and Hispanic voters have become an increasingly important element of the Democratic party. But these shifts in the voting patterns of major socioeconomic groups have not created a clear majority party in the United States. Indeed, predicting the likelihood of the Democrats, Republicans, or even a third party movement achieving majority status is extremely hazardous in the present political environment. The Fifth American Party System is in a seeming state of disarray and no clearly defined Sixth Party System is on the horizon. America's party system of the 1990s is characterized by electoral dealignment-voters whose party loyalty is much weaker than it was from 1952 through 1964. This weakening of partisan attachments has introduced an element of volatility-massive swings of party support from election to election in to American politics. For example, weakened party loyalties account for Ross Perot's capturing 19 percent of the vote in 1992 and the dramatic drop in voter support for the major parties. And to the extent that dealignment continues-and there are no signs of its imminent decline neither the Republicans nor Democrats can be confident of their hold on the voters or of their ability to win control of the government. Thus the Democrats led by Bill Clinton regained control of both the presidency and Congress in the 1992 elections, only to lose their House and Senate majorities two years later when not a single Republican incumbent was defeated and the Democrats sustained massive losses.





http://spot.colorado.edu/~mcguire/partysys.html


I learned something new..... did you???

[ninjalooter1701]

This needs to be stickied.

[Fredfredson]

I agree.

Great catch Goddesscon.

Thanks :wave

F
:pooter

[goddesscon]

Thanks...but I dunno how to make it stick... :(


I pasted it up for you m'Lady. Just don't ask me to do wallpaper. :lol F

[sarmajor]

I suggest that the party system is one of the worst political institutions inflicted on mankind.

It forces politicians to be hypercrits.

It stands to reason that not every member of each party agrees with everything that the party stands for but is usually obliged to vote on party lines on each issue..........except for the rare occasion where an individual conscious vote is allowed.

How many parliamentarians/members of congress, on a daily basis, vote in support of legislation with which they disagree on principle and which they know would not be to the advantage of their own constituents........just to maintain party solidarity?

And they wonder why politicians have a bad name...........primarily because of party politics.

[donquixote99]

One little problem sarmajor: party politicians tend to clobber non-party politicians in the elections. What do you figure to do about that?

[sinterest]

Great thread Goddess
And they wonder why politicians have a bad name...........primarily because of party politics.
Food for thought sarmajor.

[thaanatos]

all third party attempts that I am aware of focus on the extreme ends of the political spectrum.....since winning an election requires not only a solid base in one or the other sides of the fence but a strong attraction for the center, those attempts have never been successful....

now, imagine a third part of the center...perhaps a John McCain/Zel Miller ticket, and tell me it would not attract voters.....

A concise and useful set of essays. Will print out and read them at my leisure.

Thanks Goddess.

[sinterest]

now, imagine a third part of the center...perhaps a John McCain/Zel Miller ticket, and tell me it would not attract voters.....
John McCain is right of center while Zel is further right than most republicans - where do you get together they would be in the center.
I think that you need to pick a mate slightly left of center to go with McCain.
The thought is a good one, but almost impossible if both parties don't agree and which party would want to sponsor the VP.

Bottom line: Corporate America controls both parties and the Media.
They will keep it that way, until and unless there is an uprising of Americans who feel their freedoms slipping away.
How will there be uprisings without media coverage?
INTERNET is our only hope perhaps. . . Or is our enemy?
Oh sh*t - it may be too late!

[ninjalooter1701]

I'd strongly consider at John Mc Cain ticket...I think he'd do a very fine job of balancing out John Kerry as a VP, also.

[KSoDBartman]

I like Zell Miller, but the only way I'd even consider a McCain/Miller vote is if it was a Miller/McCain ticket.

John McCain is an ass.

[ninjalooter1701]

I like Zell Miller, but the only way I'd even consider a McCain/Miller vote is if it was a Miller/McCain ticket.

John McCain is an ass.
How is he an ASS?

[thaanatos]

The thought is a good one, but almost impossible if both parties don't agree
I thought the plan was to screw both the parties and start a third one....

[Justin6898]

I read somewhere once that on his way out of the whitehouse, George Washington made a speech warning about the creation of political parties in the U.S. If I rememer right, he was strongly opposed to them.

-Justin

[sinterest]

I thought the plan was to screw both the parties and start a third one....In reality, which maybe we are not including here, These two have no chance without their parties support.
The unions and corporations would make sure they failed i.e. the parties

[Justin6898]

I could see it working once, but not after that. The only thing I think it would have going for it would be the founders, as almost no current politician would join it. I could see Hannity going insane already. lol

-Justin

[sinterest]

I could see Hannity going insane already. lol
He's just getting worse and worse.
He proposes a question, which makes all kinds of assumptions, and premises the "guest/victim" does not believe and continually interrupts till they give him the answer he insists on (liberal guests of coarse).
Some of the conservative guests seem disturbed and/or perplexed by the premises they are to accept.
I think that he is a very rude A-hole who’s main talent is memorizing all the Republican “talking points” and spewing them out in very complex questions. He covers them all (latest ones at least) every night when he is ”on”.

Rush, Hannity and Savage are true indications of the “right wing” personality. How can such attacking personalities not love war? Perennial war would suit them fine.

[Justin6898]

O'Reilly is the same way.

I respect him more than Hannity though, because when the Bush Admin. does something stupid, he points it out. Also I'm impressed by his strong stance against Gangster Rap.

Greta(sp?) too, I can't stand her know-it-all attitude.

-Justin

[ninjalooter1701]

"Ronald Regan is the most anti-black President in the history of the United States."

Really? Eight of the first twelve United States Presidents--almost every one of them Democrats, and none, of course, Republican--were slave owners.

Somehow they seem slightly more "anti-black" than Reagan in his opposition to racial preferences and multi-generation welfare recipients.
http://www.politicsandcurrentaffairs.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?t=2078&start=8

[sinterest]

O'Reilly is the same way.

I respect him more than Hannity though, because when the Bush Admin. does something stupid, he points it out. Also I'm impressed by his strong stance against Gangster Rap.
Hummm - maybe -- he is good about saying "i'll give you the last word"

[Justin6898]

Hummm - maybe -- he is good about saying "i'll give you the last word"
:rofl

I was watching him a little over a year ago and he told his guest that, but after she had spoken he made a rebuttle. Just before the music and commercials cut her off, she said: "Thanks for giving me the last word". I laughed so hard. O'Reilly ignored her. :lol

-Justin

[Justin6898]

Hummm - maybe -- he is good about saying "i'll give you the last word"
:rofl

I was watching him a little over a year ago and he told his guest that, but after she had spoken he made a rebuttle. Just before the music and commercials cut her off, she said: "Thanks for giving me the last word". I laughed so hard. O'Reilly ignored her. :lol

-Justin

[ninjalooter1701]

A strong stance against Gangsta Rap? Why is this such a super thing?

[Anonymous Idiot Savant]

Have you listened to what passes for "gangsta rap" these days?

:eyes

Move, bitch, get out da way, get out da way!

We need to see a return to the old school style IMHO.

http://www.personal.psu.edu/mgb142/bling.jpg
BLING BLING BITCH!

[ninjalooter1701]

Have you listened to what passes for "gangsta rap" these days?


Nope... er wait,

1) Hell
2) No

[jpn of Seattle]

If there's anyone left on this thread who is serious, if the problem is that people don't like parties, then I suggest we go the way of parliamentary government--by having more parties, we have more choices, and each party, by itself, has less influence.
I like proportional representation, wherein parties accrue representatives to Parliament (Congress) in proportion to the amount of the vote they win. There has to be a minimum cutoff point. Israel and Italy's cutoff points are too low, and the result is so many parties that government is unstable. It seems that 10 to 15 percent is a reasonable cutoff, which results in 5 or 6 parties to choose from.
No parties at all is a pipe dream because any group of people joined in a common political point of view or cause just naturally morphs into a structure, an organization, a party.

[Spyder Jerusalem]

Libertarianism is the only political "party" that's gonna survive the "Great Ideological Winnowing of America" in the 21st century.
Simply because Libertarians know what Freedom and Liberty really mean, and want it for everyone, not just a priviliged few rich motherfuckers.

Vote Michael Badnarik in '04!

Maybe then we will can pull ourselves out of this socio-political spiral and get America back on track....for Americans, instead of corporations, political parties, and misguided theocratic authoritarians and fascists.

[Prosperity]

This is a great thread! I tried to ask what the differences in parties were a couple months ago and got stomped to death for being a troll because I asked. This post by goddess is exactly what I wanted to know because I have felt politically ignorant.

Thank you again for all of this information! It was very clear.

[sinterest]

This post by goddess is exactly what I wanted to know because I have felt politically ignorant.
Every group has an "in croud" it is just a natural thing that happens.
I hope that you are not bitter about the way you were treated and I am glad you were helped.
It is good to have you on board.

[Fredfredson]

I tried to ask what the differences in parties were a couple months ago and got stomped to death for being a troll because I asked.

Was that on THIS board? :eek

I hope not.

Welcome to P&CA :wave

F
:pooter

[goddesscon]

Prosperity...A warm and hearty welcome to the board....
I thought I would help our posters out with a little history of the party battles and how they have changed throughout the years.....
I learned a few things from this essay too....

Glad to see the thread back on track !

[Justin6898]

Prosperity...A warm and hearty welcome to the board....

Agreed! :wave

Glad to see the thread back on track !
Sorry about that. :/ :dunno

-Justin

[Prosperity]

Hi all! I am not bitter. This is a good board and there is a lot of information here. I do come and read. Thank you for the welcome. . . . . and again thank you for all of that research. I promise to participate as I am able.

:D

[Ms Digabit]

thankyou goddesscon, your posts have made things a lot clearer.....its nice to attempt to understand what you are all arguing about.....im just about getting the picture............

[Jayne B]

That is a great series, GoddessCon.

Now we need one on the British system, which is confusing for those who haven't grown up with it (and some who have!).

[jpn of Seattle]

I don't know much about the British system, but there is one thing I really like. As I understand it, the opposition party actually names the people who would assume the various cabinet positions, such as their equivelent of Secretary of Labor, Treasury, Defense, etc. They call it a "shadow cabinet." So when you vote for one party or another, you are voting for an entire governing body, not just one man or woman who then chooses the primary roles.

Or is that a misunderstanding?

[sarmajor]

Or is that a misunderstanding

Sure is JPN...................you have got it all ballsed up.

The elected government selects the cabinet ministers (who must be elected members of parliament - and from their own party or their side of politics) who run their departments and collectively rule the country.

What the opposition does is to select senior members of their party (who, if they were in government, would themselves be cabinet ministers) to shadow each minister - as footballers shadow opposition team players in the game.

This has a number of benefits.

It enables those in the shadow cabinet to specialise in the portfolio for which they are selected. This gives them the knowledge and experience to spot any actions on which the opposition may capitalise and it is practically on the job training for them should their party gain government at the next election.

For example, the Minister for Education is shadowed by a senior member of the opposition.

While shadowing the minister he becomes the opposition's expert on education and, by closely studying - and specialising in - that department,.......he may keep the minister honest and help formulate the opposition's policy on education.

Hopefully, when his party gains power, he would then expect to become the next Minister for Education with a specialised knowledge of that department gained while in opposition as a member of the shadow cabinet.

Here endeth the first lesson

And it takes an Aussie to tell how the British system works.

[thefencehurts]

Of course it does. Damn Brits copied it off us. ;)

Good explanation by the way.

But jpn, in the end, that's basically how it turns out, since MOST of the time, the Shadow Ministers will become the next year's Ministers for the portfolio if the opposition wins the election.

Which, sar, is why, if Costello is still Treasurer when I can vote, I will NEVER vote for Liberal. There is NO WAY I'm gonna trust that punk with my money.

[Gunnybear]

Libertarianism is the only political "party" that's gonna survive the "Great Ideological Winnowing of America" in the 21st century.

Spyder ...

Based on current options, it couldn't really hurt anything. However, confessing my general ignorance having not educated myself on Libertarian doctrine, if you could post a link or two that would provide some insight while keeping the insults to Rep's & Dem's to a dull roar.

I have found myself in agreement with Libertarians more than once lately, and would at least like a little education on the subject.

And I am not pleased at all with my choices for President at the moment.

[matthew6]

However, confessing my general ignorance having not educated myself on Libertarian doctrine, if you could post a link or two that would provide some insight while keeping the insults to Rep's & Dem's to a dull roar.


I'm not Spyder, but I am an avid Libertarian, and like him, I will vote for Badnarik this year. Here are a few links you might find useful:

Libertarian Party Website: http://www.lp.org
Advocates for Self-Government: http://www.theadvocates.org
An introduction to libertarianism: http://www.Libertarianism.com
A Book by David Boaz on Libertarianism: http://www.libertarianism.org
The Independent Institute: http://www.independent.org
Institute for Humane Studies: http://www.libertarian.org
Michael Badnarik's website: http://www.badnarik.org

Hope you find what you're looking for.

[Gunnybear]

Matthew6 ....

Thanks for the links. The simple math test says I'm a centrist. I guess that means I either like everyone or dislike everyone! :lol

[matthew6]

Nah, just means you have an open mind. Which, I hope means you don't hate everybody, just that you question everybody, as you should. Those of us in the other four camps on that quiz all know we're right and the others are wrong, but we can all respect a centrist because a centrist is less wrong than the others, in that they don't think they're necessarily right.
So congratulations on being the least wrong, and condolences on being the least right.
:)

[Gunnybear]

I don't know about that being least right business ....... I should get a better deal than that. :lol

[wadi66]

Hmmmm, that says I'm a Libertarian. Wait, wait, that can not be. :dunno

[TickledPink]

Since we're on the subject of history.... If anyone wants an easy-to-read history book, I'd recommend anything by Niall Ferguson. He's witty, concise and his books are excellent. I just finished "Empire" which was about the rise and fall of the British Empire. Quite readable.

[sinterest]

now, imagine a third part of the center...perhaps a John McCain/Zel Miller ticket, and tell me it would not attract voters.....
Good ole Thaan from the first page :rollin :rollin :rollin
And way before the Republican convention and the "glove slap" to Chris Matthews :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
Glad you brought this back Goddess.
I'd take the British system in a heartbeat.
We have been brainwashed in this country to believe everything "American" is better.
Though it is not the only misconception, our political system is about to be our downfall IMO.
I am searching for alternatives to lend my support to.
One that I am seriously considering is:
http://www.fairvote.org/
I only hesitate because they don't seem to push for a "tactical retreat" back to paper ballots, scanned for the first count and saved for any needed recounts.
They are also pushing for an Electoral College change that is not as important and ain't going to happen, hence, a waste of time and energy.

[Fredfredson]

HOLY THREAD REZ BATMAN!

:dunno

F
:pooter

[Barkley]

Gingrich/DeLay – now THAT’S a ticket we could all get behind. Zell would make a good Secretary of Defense and George W Bush could serve as US envoy to the UN. Ashcroft on the Supreme Court…. Senator Kerry could be our French Ambassador.

As John Lennon once said – “Imagine”.

It’s all good.

[Spotcheck]

God knows that Newt has been dying to be President since he first wrote the Contract With America, if not long before that. Surely he was one of the worse Speakers of the House to ever serve in that position.

Hence, I would expect Newt to do just about anything to make that grand
event happen -- because he really wants it. With Delay as his Veep we'd have two hatchet men in our highest offices. Perfect! Just perfect! Good call Barkley.

[Apathycrat]

I'd strongly consider at John Mc Cain ticket...I think he'd do a very fine job of balancing out John Kerry as a VP, also. I would've agreed back in 2000 (despite McCain's S&L scandal involvement)...but he's turned into more or less a war hawk and seems to have bought the war on terra ruse lock, stock and barrel. I wouldn't vote for him now unless he changes course...then I probably won't vote for him for waffling.

[lily]

Too lazy to read all the posts. Don't know if this was mentioned, just saw the McCain thingy.

I think he would make an excellent "war president"........at least he's been to war.........but come on, look at the man. He's still got cancer, no matter how they try to hide it...........he would have to have a strong vice presidential candidate to pull this off, because if I see it, you know the Democrats see it and will expoit it.

[Spyder Jerusalem]

We have been brainwashed in this country to believe everything "American" is better.
Good one, Sin.
And oh so true.

There is an attitude of superiority in the snide way Americans view anything in the rest of the world, and especially politically.
What's funny is that if you ask anybody, any politician, any citizen, they'll say:
"Well, its an imperfect, corrupt system, but it's the best we've got, and much better than any other country."

To which I say, bullshit.
Bullshit to even think that there can't be a better way.

Like having a president.

I say, scrap the whole fuckin' system, and try somethin' else.

How does this sound?
The Confederation of American States.
Our legislative body could still be a Congress, with representatives from every state based on the populations therein.
Anyone could run in their state, in a strictly controlled election process in which money didn't matter. Free political advertising during elections.
Each Rep would serve for four years, meeting four times a year during that year at a different venue in a different state.
This would preclude the need for a national capitol. Washington would be a thing of the past, a relic.
Because of internet/electronic voting, a rep wouldn't even hafta attend physically, and would never hafta vote on an issue that, for some reason didn't affect him.

America doesn't need a Federal government, and the Fed has proven itself to be a liabitlity to the Nation and its Citizens.
I say end it, and try something else.
Plus, the Nationalism that Federalism promotes is starting to grow into Fascist Authoritarianism.
And we all know where that leads, now don't we?

[lily]

A noble statement..........but keep in mind they can't even decide what to do with Social Security........any change brings them to a dead halt. Can you imagine trying to change the whole government system as we know it.

[Spotcheck]

Like having a President

We have one of those already pathetic as he may be, and plenty of wannabees, thank you please. I think Hillary will run next for Democrats and Mit Romney (just guessing) for Republicans. Cheney's over the hill and that ticker is just not going to help him out one bit. He's a loser.

I say, scrap the whole fuckin' system, and try somethin' else.

We started a new one in 1787 after we were fortunate enough to win the American Revolution. We could have lost that war too. Nevertheless, America would have come into existence -- just not this America -- the America everyone loves to hate -- including you -- apparently although you might have her long-term interests in mind which would cause me to re-evaluate your ass. But only if you have that in mind. Otherwise, forget it.

How does this sound?The Confederation of American States.

Sounds like the South once tried. They lost the Civil War in four long and bloody years -- the bloodiest war in American history. Got their asses kicked but good by the North, but they have risen again and now run this Nation State. That is the problem, Spyder.

Our Legislature could still be a Congress, with representatives from every state based on the populations therein.

No, we like the Electoral College. Keeps the riff-raf out of office -- it's sole purpose as foreseen by our founders -- if you care to know it. We do not want to be a Democracy. We want to remain a Republic. That's the whole point and a direction this President does not seem to be headed for at all. This jasper is headed toward totalitarianism -- the worse idea any President ever had. Frankly, I think he's the re-incarnation of Richard Nixon and that explains why Hunter S. Thompson ate his gun -- a tragic loss for America. One could hear the door click shut when he died. Better than Tom Wolfe ever considered being.

Anyone could run in their state, in a strictly controlled election process in which money didn't matter. Free political advertising during elections.

You'll get populists again -- the Riff-Raf of which I spoke earlier. No thanks, but why don't you start your own nation based upon these Principles? You've got America's problems all figured out. I think you'd enjoy running your own place. No Parliamentary systems here though. Sorry, but they don't hunt for us. Too many parties. Too many governmental collapses.

Each Rep would serve for four years, meeting four times a year during that year at a different venue in a different state.

Sounds peachy to me. One term wonders. Can we call them that?

This would preclude the need for a national capitol. Washington would be a thing of the past, a relic.

One day it will be, but not yet. You would not really want to destroy the second Rome before she had done all her work now would you? What of Empire and glory?

Because of internet/electronic voting, a rep wouldn't even hafta attend physically, and would never hafta vote on an issue that, for some reason didn't affect him.

Agreed that the Government should become Virtual. That part I do like a lot. Second sensible thing you've said in this post, in fact, since it's all but inevitable that everything is moving here including us. Especially when we can download our brains into $1000 PCs and augment them by adding Ram for memory enhancement and write new software to make us far more intelligent than any human being who has ever lived is -- including Einstein and others.

America doesn't need a Federal government, and the Fed has proven itself to be a liabitlity to the Nation and its Citizens.

Yes, and we did so well before we had a Federal Government too. Like we did not exist one might say except under the Article of Confederation -- a disastrous governmental situation, and the very reason we become a Republic. Keep on thinking though: you are bound to get something right -- even it's accidentally. States Rights only. Yes siree! Yeehaw!

I say end it, and try something else.

If you can get the votes then do it. Otherwise, stuff it. That's how this system works -- in theory at least.

Note: You really need to test this out on one State first and see how well it works, what the problems are and where it's inferior to the present system. Me? I should like to end political corruption in America, but both major parties and hopelessly corrupt and unsalvageable.

Plus, the Nationalism that Federalism promotes is starting to grow into Fascist Authoritarianism.

You've got that part right. That's two for Spyder. I do fear we will lose our rights and become enslaved.

And we all know where that leads, now don't we?

Excuse me, but slavery is not an option for this Christian, Heathen.

[Spyder Jerusalem]

Like having a President
We have one of those already pathetic as he may be, and plenty of wannabees,
If you had read a little closer, you woulda seen that I implied that we don't need a President at all.
Bullshit to even think that there can't be a better way.
That doesn't include the present Federalist leadership position.
We started a new one in 1787 after we were fortunate enough to win the American Revolution.
"Fortunate enough" is right!
Pure chance that we "won".
apparently although you might have her long-term interests in mind which would cause me to re-evaluate your ass.
No, I have the people's long term interests in mind.
The Confederation of American States.
They lost the Civil War
Got their asses kicked but good by the North
Hey, Spotty, you ain't really dumb enough to think that when I use the word "confederation", I'm referring to the failed governemnt of the southern states?
No.
I refer to the government that would exist after the dissolution of the Federalist Beast.
Keeps the riff-raf out of office
So, really, from your elitist perspective, you don't believe that EVERY citizen of our country deserves the chance to lead, only the "superior" "non-riff raff"....hmmm?
That sounds almost, vaguely, Socialist/Communist/Fascist!
Is that what you are, Spotty, a closet Pseudo-Fascist with Socialist/Communist leanings?

The Electoral College is the Federalist way of negating the will of the people.
This country, and its people, deserve a popular vote.
The Electoral College is an ancient remnant of British style rule, that minimizes the importance of "one citizen, one vote".
While this abomination stands, the voting process is redundant, and we might as well have appointees in office rather than candidates, since they are not placed there by the will of the people, but by the will of the "elite'.
And, any way you look at it, that's NOT America.
You'll get populists again

Exactly!
Leaders that care about the people more than they do corporations.
Leaders that care more about the nation than their own position in it.
Leaders that believe in Americans more than they do "America".
Article of Confederation -- a disastrous governmental situation, and the very reason we become a Republic.
Thus marking the death of our founder's dreams for America, namely, a nation ruled by the common man, not by elitist scum!
Excuse me, but slavery is not an option for this Christian, Heathen.
"Slavery" and "christianity" are not mutually exclusive terms.

[Neko]

Excuse me, but slavery is not an option for this Christian, Heathen.

The lions it is then. I love this game.

[lily]

When forming this new nation and keeping the riff raff out.......can we require that they have a better than C average in college and brag about it to sutdents? Oh and also actually know the names of foreign countries they have visions of invading before they take office?

[Spotcheck]

Double Post -- excuse me I was multi-tasking.

[Spotcheck]

Like having a President

We have one of those already pathetic as he may be, and plenty of wannabees,

If you had read a little closer, you woulda seen that I implied that
we don't need a President at all.

I did, but since you enjoyed tweaking me so much over on another post, I thought a little pay back was due. That's all -- really.

Bullshit to even think that there can't be a better way.

That doesn't include the present Federalist leadership position.

We started a new one in 1787 after we were fortunate enough to win the American Revolution.

"Fortunate enough" is right! Pure chance that we "won"

It was an extremely close call. Only a few factors allowed us to prevail specifically that the English were over-extended. That they had dissidents in their government that agreed we had the right to be a separate nation-state, and that the French actually helped a bit while their Prussian Mercenaries failed to carry the day. Luck or destiny -- we still prevailed.

apparently although you might have her long-term interests in mind which would cause me to re-evaluate your ass.

No, I have the people's long term interests in mind.

Actually, I believe you Spyder. I am just not necessarily certain that the people are not speaking right now. Bush won twice. Sure there were irregularities in voting procedures in both elections, but we got our tails kicked twice. I don't like it when that happens. Not even a little bit.

The Confederation of American States.

They lost the Civil War

Got their asses kicked but good by the North

Hey, Spotty, you ain't really dumb enough to think that when I use the word "confederation", I'm referring to the failed governemnt of the southern states?

I sure as heck hope not, Spyder. Just hectoring you for a change.

No. I refer to the government that would exist after the dissolution of the Federalist Beast.

Spyder, that is not going to happen so forget about it all right? When you live under the same rules for over 200 years, you cannot just change the government because your side is out of power. That sounds precisely like what Republicans would do. Change the rules of the game -- in the middle so they prevail. Nope, we've got to whip their asses with better ideas -- ideas that once caused people to vote for us. That means having to wait until they create enough poor people again - Capiche?

Keeps the riff-raf out of office

So, really, from your elitist perspective, you don't believe that EVERY citizen of our country deserves the chance to lead, only the "superior" "non-riff raff"....hmmm?

Of course not. We both know that the only people who cannot run right now are people who are not American citizens. If you cannot tell when your chain is being jerked, what does that say about your intellect? Not the sharpest tool in the woodshed, is it? We'll keep playing though and see how you really do. It's way too soon to be counting coup.

That sounds almost, vaguely, Socialist/Communist/Fascist! Is that what you are, Spotty, a closet Pseudo-Fascist with Socialist/Communist leanings?

That is precisely the mechanism the Founders of this nation installed, not me. So if you believe the Founders were Socialists, I recommend you re-read your American history.

The Electoral College is the Federalist way of negating the will of the people. This country, and its people, deserve a popular vote.

Not necessarily. Besides, how many times has the Electoral College gone against the Popular vote? Not many times. Hence, the Electors despite their reputations perform their function it seems to me. No, I do not like not knowing how they are selected though.

The Electoral College is an ancient remnant of British style rule, that minimizes the importance of "one citizen, one vote".

It's worked just fine for over 200 years. Tamper with this government at your peril -- not mine. You don't get to make this call. Pass a Constitutional Amendment if this is what you truly wish to see happen. That's how this nation actually works.

While this abomination stands, the voting process is redundant, and we might as well have appointees in office rather than candidates, since they are not placed there by the will of the people, but by the will of the "elite'. And, any way you look at it, that's NOT America.

I told you how you could legally change it, so please quit crying like a baby who does not know the rules of the game he's playing. It might be an anachronism, but if so, then have it changed legally not extra-Constitutionally.

You'll get populists again

Exactly!

I understand and that's the only way Democrats will regain power. Once we truly were the Populists of this nation-state, but not really since 1972. It was the McGovern disaster that sealed our fate as that party.

Leaders that care about the people more than they do corporations.

Oh, I quite agree that would be really nice to see again, but we lost doggone it all. It's not as though I have been screaming that this time was coming since 1989 -- because that's when I saw it all unfolding before my eyes, but guess who would not believe me? Liberals -- my very kind rejected my correct warnings. Well, that did tick me off, but Republicans did not believe me either. So I had no choice but to sit and wait until the last election and then bet everything I had that George Bush would be re-elected and so he was -- which was completely incorrect. But when people will not listen to more than one decade long of warning from yours truly, then they get what they deserve. How did I know? By studying the successes of Ronald Reagan. And what is George Bush? Ronald Reagan heavy. That's all this japser is.

Leaders that care more about the nation than their own position in it. Leaders that believe in Americans more than they do "America"

Bring this about Constitutionally, and I'll vote right along side you but not if you have to undo the Constitution to do this.

Note: I do realize we are headed straight towards tyranny. I can feel it in my bones.

Article of Confederation -- a disastrous governmental situation, and the very reason we become a Republic.

Thus marking the death of our founder's dreams for America, namely, a nation ruled by the common man, not by elitist scum!

Whoa there Spyderman! IIRC and I most assuredly do, there was this event in Philadelphia from May to September 1787 called the Constitutional Convention. There delegates -- a lot of distinguished older white men like Ben Franklin (a Deist) who wanted 6 presidents (you can see why now, can't you?) and a host of other such individuals from each of the 13 States met and determined the very rules of the government they were going to conceive. And when they were done, the Constitution of the United States of American has been written that included 10 Amendments immediately -- the Bill of Rights. It is this Bill of Rights that makes this nation different from every other nation that ever existed before.

Tragically, we have all but emasculated it, but it's still there and it's alive and had a heartbeat still. That is the law of this land and it will continue being such until this nation is destroyed -- whenever that occurs. You work with that Document and you'll find me most cooperative.

Excuse me, but slavery is not an option for this Christian, Heathen.

"Slavery" and "christianity" are not mutually exclusive terms.

Agreed, but I will be no man's slave as long as I am alive!

[Spotcheck]

Excuse me, but slavery is not an option for this Christian, Heathen.

The lions it is then. I love this game.

Well that's your problem. You fail to grasp that Democrats can be and are Christians. Care to know why you keep on losing elections? Look no further for it is right here in front of you. For 15 years I warned all of you this would happen, but did you listen to me? Nope. Now, you're in a Black Hole. Good luck escaping.

[Spotcheck]

nm.

[Spotcheck]

When forming this new nation and keeping the riff raff out.......can we require that they have a better than C average in college and brag about it to sutdents? Oh and also actually know the names of foreign countries they have visions of invading before they take office?

Lili, you seem like an intelligent lass. Do you truly believe that George Bush's academic credentials from Yale or his knowledge of geography or world leaders is our problem? Dear, we just lost two elections to him -- the last one we could not allow him to win lest we lose for an entire generation. But were you out there telling people how crucial this election really was? That there was no going back except the long slow death march of time and decades of scorn and abuse to follow? Because if so I did not hear your voice, yet I know I was yelling this at the top of my lungs. But back in 1989, neither Liberals nor Conservatives would believe me, although Conservatives had great reasons to be optimistic that their time in the wilderness was finally over and that they would once again become the ruling party in the United States. Well, it's happened and I cannot undo it and neither can you nor anyone else.

You have absolutely no idea how much this vexes me!

[lily]

Do you truly believe that George Bush's academic credentials from Yale or his knowledge of geography or world leaders is our problem?

Actually it is our problem. We need to stay informed, at least so we can tell our grandchildren of how it used to be living in America. ;) Seriously though, we really do need to stay informed.....so we don't get fooled again.



But were you out there telling people how crucial this election really was? That there was no going back except the long slow death march of time and decades of scorn and abuse to follow? Because if so I did not hear your voice, yet I know I was yelling this at the top of my lungs.

Yes I was.

[Neko]

No, I have the people's long term interests in mind.

I am just not necessarily certain that the people are not speaking right now. Bush won twice.

Wouldn't that assume that the people has its own long term interests in mind, or even knows what they are?

And now, onto:

Well that's your problem. You fail to grasp that Democrats can be and are Christians. Care to know why you keep on losing elections? Look no further for it is right here in front of you. For 15 years I warned all of you this would happen, but did you listen to me? Nope. Now, you're in a Black Hole. Good luck escaping.

What? I never suggested that Democrats couldn't be Christians, the worst you can accuse me of is making a rather obvious joke. Secondly, there's only one of me, and I've never lost an election in my life, furthermore, I suspect that everyone knows by now that you told us so about something or other, and it has been duly noted. Several times.

[Neko]

Because if so I did not hear your voice, yet I know I was yelling this at the top of my lungs.

That may be why you couldn't hear anyone else.

[Spotcheck]

Actually it is our problem. We need to stay informed, at least so we can tell our grandchildren of how it used to be living in America. ;) Seriously though, we really do need to stay informed.....so we don't get fooled again.

Agreed, but I was not fooled at all. Never did I vote for this President.

But were you out there telling people how crucial this election really was? That there was no going back except the long slow death march of time and decades of scorn and abuse to follow? Because if so I did not hear your voice, yet I know I was yelling this at the top of my lungs.

Yes I was.

I guess were not vocal enough then. I did everything I could to prevent this from happening. Now, it's too late. That what vexes me.

[Spotcheck]

No, I have the people's long term interests in mind.

I am just not necessarily certain that the people are not speaking right now. Bush won twice.

Wouldn't that assume that the people has its own long term interests in mind, or even knows what they are?

I am sorry, Neko, but this statement is a bit confusing. When you ask me Wouldn't that assume that the people has its own long term interests in mind, my answer would be, yes! The American people had better know what is in their long-term interests. Otherwise, they are dolts.

Then you continue to form the question: , or even knows what they are?

Here is sounds as if you are question whether or not the People know what is best for them.

My answer is that I certainly hope so, since that it their tasks in life.

If I have mangled your statement I did so accidentally and so ask you to kindly correct me.

And now, onto:

Well that's your problem. You fail to grasp that Democrats can be and are Christians. Care to know why you keep on losing elections? Look no further for it is right here in front of you. For 15 years I warned all of you this would happen, but did you listen to me? Nope. Now, you're in a Black Hole. Good luck escaping.

What? I never suggested that Democrats couldn't be Christians, the worst you can accuse me of is making a rather obvious joke. Secondly, there's only one of me, and I've never lost an election in my life, furthermore, I suspect that everyone knows by now that you told us so about something or other, and it has been duly noted. Several times.

I can understand that this would become extremely tedious if not boring. I shall not mention it again.

[Spotcheck]

Because if so I did not hear your voice, yet I know I was yelling this at the top of my lungs.

That may be why you couldn't hear anyone else.

No comment.

[Neko]

I feel nasty now. I was so sarky and you're being all reasonable. Anyhow...

Of course, I agree that the people knows in general what it wants (peace, quiet and money), but I should not like to overestimate its ability to recognise how to get those things, especially given the state of spin and the media.

For example, I might know that my entryphone needs fixing (which, if my landlord is reading this it really, really does), and that it is in my own interests that it should be fixed, however, I haven't the least idea of how the job is done- my elementary knowledge of electronics does not cover getting wires from the door to the fourth floor without leaving them trailing down the front of the house and out my window.

The people has judged that GW is the best person, metaphorically speaking, to repair its entryphone- but how much does the public know about what is required for the job in hand?

[Spotcheck]

I feel nasty now. I was so sarky and you're being all reasonable. Anyhow...

I have been sarcastic -- even positively cruel before and lived to regret it. I try to eliminate it now. You were correct about my mentioning anything more though, so I am holding myself to that vow. That does become boorish.

Of course, I agree that the people knows in general what it wants (peace, quiet and money), but I should not like to overestimate its ability to recognize how to get those things, especially given the state of spin and the media.

I have never seen spin like this before in my entire life. I mean I am amazed at a great deal of it, because it's positively brilliant, even if I disagree with a great deal of it. I still want my nation and it's people to prosper.

For example, I might know that my entryphone needs fixing (which, if my landlord is reading this it really, really does), and that it is in my own interests that it should be fixed, however, I haven't the least idea of how the job is done- my elementary knowledge of electronics does not cover getting wires from the door to the fourth floor without leaving them trailing down the front of the house and out my window.

Follow the old wires and use a long wire yourself until you can grab it and pull it up. You might have to attach several wires to one old wire to replace this properly. You also might need more then one person for this too since four floors is going to be about 60 feet in vertical height. You could probably do it though. I mean that. I always repair my stuff because it's cheaper, and I can still do it. But then I live in a house and that is different that renting or owning an apartment. It's a great investment too of course. It's hard to be real estate as an investment anywhere. Yes, you want to own land -- as much as you can afford, but land that has water, electricity and vehicular access -- not in the mountains in other words or the Desert.

The people has judged that GW is the best person, metaphorically speaking, to repair its entryphone- but how much does the public know about what is required for the job in hand?

They are going to have about 50 years of finding out and seeing for themselves then, because Democrats will not win nationally for a very long time indeed, if ever again really because of a Phenomenon I will mention now:

I will be moving to the Internet permanently. In 2019 or 2020, we will be able to non-destructively scan your entire brain into a $1000.00 (then) PC. When we need better memories we will and RAM -- until our non-organic memory far exceeds or organic one. If we need to become more intelligent (and we will), because the problems facing this planet have become much more complicated, we will write software code -- either recursive algorithms or more powerful solutions and add those to our software brains. Then, we will become both smarter than any human being alive, we will also become immortal -- provided we back ourselves up. Do this no matter what else you do Neko. Eventually, your organic self will die and go where all other organic human "souls" go when they die. I am not going to assume religion will not prevent you from doing this because it should not. Still, that choice is yours. I've already decided.

Now, it just so happens that the human brain being becomes depressed when it has no body. So we will use the parts we are already making to make new bodies for these PC tricked out brilliant beings -- beings that normal humans will no longer be able to communicate with. From these artificial parts we will build our new bodies and add what we want to them.

Note: The transformation of this species into a new one will take the entire 21st century. There will be a long period of time when we augment our organic selfs with implants of all sorts in order to improve the way we live and work. Eventually though, our organic brains will die and all that will be left is our "souls" and our PCed enhanced selves. It will be these new beings that truly begin to travel in Space-Time and explore it. One must always make a backup too, because when you make an enhancement, you will actually change. If you do not back yourself up, when disaster strikes the Internet -- and it will -- given all of the malicious software that are after PCs right now, you will die. You can only be restored by activating your backup and it will be antiquated by then. Hence, if you need to be updated you will have to take the time to do the work necessary to get yourself up to speed again. This should not be a problem or an immortal being though. Just an serious pain in the ass is all.

Note: If your PC self and your backup are destroyed that will be the end --except for the "soul" your organic self had. Your PC version will insist it has one too and it will be agreed that this truly is the case. Still, when it dies the same things will happen. Make more than one backup while you are at it. Better save then sorry.

[Spyder Jerusalem]

Wow!

I mean......like.....WOW!


Spotty......uh......I don't quite know what to say to that....its just so...uh...

Ummm.....yeah......riiiight."



I wonder though what all that has to do with the Democrats?

[Neko]

Thanks. I might try it.

[Spotcheck]

Thanks. I might try it.

Don't sweat the wiring job. Do please scan your brain into a $1000 PC in 2019 or 2020. You will be on your way to immortality -- even though you will being becoming a different species. That was really the point of my post. I mention it for people's well being in the future that is screaming towards us and will not be stopped.

[Fredfredson]

The thought of moving my mind into a PC lends new meaning to the phrase:

BLUE SCREEN OF DEATH :eek

F
:pooter

[Spotcheck]

The thought of moving my mind into a PC lends new meaning to the phrase:

BLUE SCREEN OF DEATH :eek

In 2020 AD, the hardware available will be unbelievable to us and the Software will be much better written and conceived. If they were going to be what we have right now, I could more than understand your concern. But they won't be then -- and the proliferation of computation devices will continue so that they will be all around us -- and even implanted within us. That is what the part of 21st century will be all about computationally speaking.

Meanwhile, the problems we face on this planet will become more and more complicated which will actually require greater intelligence than we have right now. That will be one of the drivers, I suspect.

[Spotcheck]

do want to clarify that while this process will begin in 2019 to 2020, it will take until 2099 -- the rest of the Century before we are essentially